Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Agreed ... AMC wants 10-14 million DISH customers to pay 40/80 cents per household - whether or not they actually watch AMC. On the low end they walk away with $4 million per month, $48 million a year. Make the channels a la carte and they would have to sell a lot of subscriptions at a higher price just to break even.

Channels know they are better off in packages sold to people who don't want them as well as the people who will make a lot of noise if the channel wasn't there. Very few channels have decided to allow a la carte sales. Most of them are not very popular or are very expensive a la carte.

There are different levels of bundling that I think are confusing people.

Dish, for example, couldn't legally require you to sign up for their satellite-internet connection in order to get Dish TV. Similarly, AT&T can't require you to get their phone or TV service to get their internet.

These companies can provide you with bundled discounts, but by law they have to allow you to buy their individual offerings separately... otherwise Dish would be unfairly preventing you from getting AT&T internet services and AT&T would be unfairly preventing you from getting Dish satellite.

HOWEVER...

Once you sign up for Dish satellite TV... Dish doesn't have to sell you channels a la carte or any particular kind of package. Dish can structure their satellite TV service any way they want.

Similarly, Disney can choose to sell Dish each ABC, ESPN, and Disney channel separately OR bundle them into groups that require Dish to take all or none of them.

Some folks, I think, are confusing the illegal bundling issues with legally protected bundling.

I get the feeling nobody read my earlier post extrapolating from the current cost of AMC vs their actual number of viewers.

It's worth reminding again that based on the numbers posted earlier in this thread, less than 10% of the people paying for AMC watched their highest rated episode ever.... and the number of regular viewers from night to night falls well below even that the rest of the week, month, and year.

If every single channel in the packages got the 50 cent increase AMC appears to be looking for, we would almost all have to drop pay TV tomorrow because we couldn't afford it.

AMC, at 75 cents a sub, provides much more value-added than ESPN at 5 dollars.

AMC runs how many hours a year of original (not previously shown anywhere) content? Yes, ESPN does rerun SportsCenter and a few other things, but 90% of the time, the programming is original. How much does it cost ESPN to cover a sporting event? Toss out fees to leagues. The transportation and setup of equipment, the need for many cameras and camera operators, the production truck, the backhaul. Play-by-play, color, on-field reporter. And they don't cover an event a few times a year - they're doing multiple events every day.

You may personally not like ESPN and their programming, but the reality is they are producing much more content, at a much higher cost, by far more than 10-1 compared to AMC. It is ESPN that is the bargain.

AMC runs how many hours a year of original (not previously shown anywhere) content? Yes, ESPN does rerun SportsCenter and a few other things, but 90% of the time, the programming is original. How much does it cost ESPN to cover a sporting event? Toss out fees to leagues. The transportation and setup of equipment, the need for many cameras and camera operators, the production truck, the backhaul. Play-by-play, color, on-field reporter. And they don't cover an event a few times a year - they're doing multiple events every day.

You may personally not like ESPN and their programming, but the reality is they are producing much more content, at a much higher cost, by far more than 10-1 compared to AMC. It is ESPN that is the bargain.

I read profit margins are a lot smaller for sports channels because of what you describe.

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

I read profit margins are a lot smaller for sports channels because of what you describe.

Makes sense, and thanks for the take on that, both of you.

As a very current point of reference, ESPN is, bless their souls!, airing all 8 NCAA D1 lacrosse games this weekend, and may be producing them as well, though I don't know a good source to check as to who's doing the field work. All in HD, and all pretty well done, in 8 locations. Plus the odd softball or college baseball game, poker games (is card playing really a sport??) The they are airing a Rangers BB game, which is probably produced by others, though, again, dunno. And Sports Center, oft repeated, but not cheap to do.

I don't blame AMC for asking for 75 cents a sub. Everything is priced off ESPN, and if ESPN is worth 5+ dollars a month, AMC is certainly worth at least 75 cents.

Ok, following that logic ESPN isn't worth $5 per month ... the several channels of ESPN are probably worth $5 per month (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPN U and the alt ESPN channels for regional blackouts). Based on the bulk account pricing $5 covers all the ESPN channels.

If AMC wants 75c for AMC, WE, IFC and Fuse (and perhaps other channels) it might be a deal. But 75c for just AMC? No thank you.

So if you're willing to pay 75c for just AMC does that mean every higher rated network would get more than 75c? AMC is NOT the top rated network on cable. They didn't end up in the top 15 in prime time last year. It seems that giving AMC their "75c" would just lead to the lesser paid more popular channels demanding more ... and our bills would continue to go up.

Ok, following that logic ESPN isn't worth $5 per month ... the several channels of ESPN are probably worth $5 per month (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPN U and the alt ESPN channels for regional blackouts). Based on the bulk account pricing $5 covers all the ESPN channels.

If AMC wants 75c for AMC, WE, IFC and Fuse (and perhaps other channels) it might be a deal. But 75c for just AMC? No thank you.

So if you're willing to pay 75c for just AMC does that mean every higher rated network would get more than 75c? AMC is NOT the top rated network on cable. They didn't end up in the top 15 in prime time last year. It seems that giving AMC their "75c" would just lead to the lesser paid more popular channels demanding more ... and our bills would continue to go up.

AMC needs to stay at the 40c or less level.

I have no idea what any of these channels are worth to viewers because we don't get a chance to buy them individually or even by ownership group.

But we do have some information from the 2009 chart and from the 2012 top 20 list which shows the following:

I guess I think that in a retransmission agreement for the next five years if I were AMC I'd simply have my fee set at whatever the provider is paying for ESPN2. Seems fair to me.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

I have no idea what any of these channels are worth to viewers because we don't get a chance to buy them individually or even by ownership group.

Cost and value are not equivalent to the customer. Even with a la carte the customer is not paying the exact cost of the channel ... they are usually paying the cost plus a mark up (DISH is not a not for profit company). In some cases the charged price may not cover the actual cost of provision (such as locals) but the additional cost can be covered in the regular package prices or other required base package.

Good shows end ... even "the best shows" end. And it seems that the end is nearer for shows these days than it was for the best shows of the past.

Signing a long term contract with AMC for the apparently good shows they have today commits DISH to a price regardless of what AMC does in the future. Is AMC committed to continuing at least the same quality of programming as they have now? Of replacing shows as they end with shows equally or more popular?

That is where Rainbow failed with Voom. DISH paid big bucks with written assurances that Rainbow would spend a certain amount of money maintaining and improving their programming. The channels turned into video loops with little new programming. One can read the complaints about the repetitiveness of Voom. DISH heard those complaints from their customers and didn't see the return on the investment they made to keep Voom alive nor Rainbow keeping their promise to spend on program development.

So now AMC has a few good programs - and they want to leverage them to raise their rates. Can AMC promise that they will always have the same level (or better) of good programs? And what about WE and IFC? Anything special there or is AMC pulling the old "if you want our good channel you must take our other channels too" trick? Will AMC try to piggyback Fuse and other network properties?

True, MadMen and Hell On Wheels (along with Justified on FX and OnceUpon a Time and Lost Girl on SYFY) are our few "Never miss" shows.

For this reason alone I just pulled up short of pulling the trigger on DiSH (we have DTV, NO CONTRACT) - somrthing we had been planning for years.

And yes, wih Deadwood gone, Hell On Wheels IS *that* important. Mad Men just cinches it. With my fascination for politics (and I would SUE to break my contract if they pulled either msnbc, LINK, or Current;) those AMC shows and the others mentioned are the only things we can watch together.

So by allowing this cancellation of AMC, and the new nonconsentual DTV contracts hitting on the 15th, either DISH is suicidally inept or they're fools who have been one-upped by a conspiracy (IMO illegal "competition," BTW) between DTV and AMC. And that makes them fair game by others in the future, hardly arguing for dumping DTV for a 2 year contract with them.

That said, I still have questions about the rental prices of various receivers and services (like DVR) and most importantlly about the exact date of "automatic billing," and the REAL total of the first payment they demand for installation (and then, of course, when the next bill is due/charged.)